Final Fantasy, Call of Duty, Skyrim and many more get torn down by our readers.

Share this story

As expected, last weekend's list of Ars editors' picks for their least favorite overrated games led to some spirited debate in the comments. There were plenty of people around to lend both support and derision for each and every pick, though Florence Ion's pick for Super Meat Boy seemed to draw the most universal ire (and Lee Hutchinson's Halo pick was by far the most controversial, with dozens of commenters on each side).

Despite all the arguing, there was one thing everyone seemed to agree on: the list was way too short. We left off a lot of way overrated candidates. While we weren't really attempting to be comprehensive, our commenters did their best to remedy that problem, offering their own picks for games that just don't deserve the heaps of praise they receive from the critical establishment. Here's a round-up of some of the more popular and/or interesting picks from the epic, 350+ comment thread.

Final Fantasy

The most popular overrated pick among our commenters, by a hair, was the Final Fantasy series, and Final Fantasy VII in particular. Pitmonster led things off by saying the game "did nothing for me at all, despite all the gaming reviewers raving about it being the best game of all time." Robot Dinosaur expanded on the thought: "Not that it's a bad game, but it doesn't deserve the ridiculous hype it's been given ever sense. It's inferior to FF6 in most ways that matter (more interesting characters, more interesting villain, better plot, better subplots, better graphics if you allow that masterful 2D sprites beat shitty 3D stuff.)" Commenter ifgriffi ended up with quite a bit of FFVII buyer's remorse: "It's one of those games that I expected to love (even traded my N64 for a Playstation so I could play it) but ended up hating and just barely forcing myself to finish so I could say I did. ... I didn't give a shit about any of the characters, and the fact that all your abilities were stored in materia made them pretty much interchangeable anyway. And the unskippable minute-and-a-half long summon spells were just obnoxious."

The rest of the Final Fantasy series didn't escape our commenters' ire either. Kitkoan called outFinal Fantasy VI (known as Final Fantasy III in the US), specifically for what he sees as a mess of a story. "It flips through so many characters at a break neck speed that by the end of it I just didn't care what happened to any of them. It felt more like they just gathered a bunch of five page stories and tried to in a desperate move to merge them into one giant story." Charleski called out the entire Final Fantasy series, but hated VI in particular. "What a tedious pile of mindless button-clicking shit! I actually persevered fairly far into the game until I got to a point where I realized that killing the next boss required a whole lot of leveling-up by clicking the same buttons over and over again on a countless pile of completely unchallenging trash mobs."

Mosxs centered his complaints on the more recent Final Fantasy titles, specifically the ones after the original PlayStation. "Being a big fanboy of Final Fantasy in the 90s, Final Fantasy X was one of the worst games I've ever played. ... Seriously, the story in that game was flat out awful. To the point where I was laughing in disbelief at some scenes and dialog. ... Each FF game since has gotten progressively worse as well."

A series of overrated events games

The Call of Duty series in general was a perhaps unsurprisingly popular choice for an overrated series, withmanycommenters just declaring the games as overrated without further comment. PrimalxComwboy put his problems with the series into words, specifically arguing against the games' popular multiplayer modes. "I fail and/or loath online competitive multiplayer, having encountered too many Trolls that would rather see the world burn, than actually enjoy a game with people. I just thank God that Words with Friends doesn't suffer the same amount of insults and cheating or 'world burning' behavior as COD or any game similar to it."

A number of commenters didn't see why so many people seemed so enamored with the world of Skyrim, or Elder Scrolls in general. "It felt profoundly empty, with a feeling that nothing we did would affect the world that much," dogbiscuit complained. "I've spent enough hours playing it to know that bugs from the previous Elder Scrolls titles are still there, and the addition of dragons does not 'instant classic make," Shmak suggested. Snyder thinks the entire Elder Scrolls series doesn't deserve its praise, thanks to "ridiculous" leveling, bad AI, and even "abominations" from the face generation engine.

The Assassin's Creed series also drew a lot of ire, from quite afew commenters who said they didn't see the appeal. Swilhelm called the first game in the series "the only game I've ever started that I gave up on entirely. Everyone seemed to love it, but I found it to be slow paced and the controls were beyond awkward." Ginsuchikara was particularly mad about Assassin's Creed 3 and its "forgettable, shallow characters. Crap art direction. Glitches everywhere. Story that seems to have been written by M. Night Shyamalan. Pointlessly, overly difficult AI's."

Speaking of convoluted games stories, a few commenters took issue with the Metal Gear Solid series. Boticho was particularly offended by the way the fourth game included "a given action break at over sixty minutes [long]. Some people I know were turned off when they realize they were mostly watching an interactive movie that they could not figure out as they have not played previous games." Salamanderjuice also pointed out the "hour-long cut scenes" but also the long install and load times and a tailing mission that stretched out to 30 or 40 minutes. MPK211, meanwhile, pointed toMetal Gear Solid 2 as a game where "the actual gameplay elements are killing the immersion and taking you out of the game, it should have just been a movie," and there was altogether too much exposition.

And the rest

Past those, there were quite a few games that were considered overrated by one or two (or maybe three) commenters in our epic thread. Angry Birds is "supposed to be physics based, but it seems to have way too large a chunk of luck for that to be true," according to wjousts. Dark Souls doesn't deserve good reviews because it's "stupidly hard" and/or "inhumanely difficult." Half-Life 2got attacked for having puzzles that were "obnoxious and tedious, essentially the game designers trying to show off their physics engine more than being interesting gameplay."

But my favorite comments, by far, were the ones I'll refer to as "machine gun trolls." These are the commenters that used the thread to simply list out a good number of ultra-popular titles that don't measure up in their books. Hardrock_ram's list of 10 overrated games included the only mention of Super Mario 64 in the entire thread, as well as an incredible pick for Tetris. Ekotan listed seven big-name games that he said "bored me to tears about an hour into the game." Jedisamurai wrote out his own list of 10 overrated titles ranging from Super Mario Galaxy to Everquest.

The very best machine gun troll comment, though, is from commenter orborborb. Not only did he put the hammer down on the entire God of War, Twisted Metal, Elder Scrolls, Prince of Persia (modern), and Assassin's Creed series, but also the entire post-Baldur's Gate II output fromBiowareand "Red Dead Redemption, Arkham City, Diablo 1&2, Borderlands, Okami, Ratchet and Clank games, Professor Layton games, Fable II, Burnout Paradise, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Mario Kart Wii, Guitar Hero, World of Warcraft, Chrono Trigger, Super Mario RPG, Paper Mario games, andKlonoa games." After reading through a list like that, it's hard to imagine that any game is good enough for such a refined palate.

Feel like we've finally got a comprehensive list? Add even more to the debate below.

Promoted Comments

Share this story

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

I was super excited for Assassin's Creed III. The strongest for sure was II, but I enjoyed Brotherhood and Revelations. I haven't gone back to III for weeks now. I've been more immersed in a game that came out around the same time period, Borderlands 2. I've put 150 hours into Borderlands 2 so far. Maybe only 8 or 9 into AC3 so far? I'll probably finish it some time this holiday, but I can't help feel it will be for closure on the story. The changes to the controls are enough to annoy me since it makes switch between subweapons incredibly awkward now. Bugs sending my character every which way in the air feels odd. And the setting... Well, the appeal to Assassin's Creed was scaling large environments. We've got the large environments thing, but America just wasn't as advanced as Europe at the time. Large buildings>Large trees for climbing.

I can respect those who think FF6 is a better game than FF7 (I disagree, but to each their own). But better villain? There is no more shallow or less interesting villain I have ever seen in a game than Kefka. He's not even a character at all, he's a caricature ("he's evil... because he is, and wants to destroy everything... because"). Blows my mind that anyone could consider him a good villain.

I loathe Bethesda Softworks. Their games are always super buggy with the fanboys defending the bugs as existing because it's such a big game. Bullshit. Bethesda knows that the PC fan community will fix their shit for them and that their games will get 10/10 just for existing.

Also nitpicking; the character models. They always look really creepy. I've never found the game particularly fun.

I like the Elder Scrolls games very much. I just wish it could immerse me into Tamriel better. There is still a major lack of NPC's in the game to make the population feel realistic, and the WHOLE continent that Oblivion and Skyrim take place in still feel too small compared to the map.

Kefka is just...broken. He's no more nonsensical or whimsy than Sephiroth.

VI is a spectacular game marred a bit by the grind. VII is a spectacle of a game marred by too much watchy not enough play-y. They're both close to "as good as it gets" for their generation, but VI is definitely the better game.

Neither measures up to Chrono Trigger, though. That was Squaresoft's unequaled masterpiece.

I was tempted to write a tongue-in-cheek comment about hipsters and "I only like the Famicon release of [obscure title], it's so much better in the original Japanese", given the sheer number of games that are being criticized here.

But then I realized that somehow simulators of all kind (from Gran Turismo to Mechwarrior) seem to have escaped Ars' collective wrath. Curious.

Okay, I have to comment on the Elder Scrolls games. They are incredibly buggy, leveling was bad until Skyrim (when it improved to mediocre), combat can be awkward, and the games are very imbalanced. And that is just the flaws I could think of off the top of my head.

And somehow, it doesn't matter. I love those games, and have put literally over a thousand hours since Morrowind. I don't know how Bethesda can make such incredibly flawed games and still keep me (and millions of others) loyal fans, but somehow they do. If you want my invisibility/stealth dagger assassin vampire dark elf, you'll have to do it over my dead body.

Steve Jobs' reality distortion field has nothing on whatever Bethesda uses. I know this, and somehow I'm good with it. Can't wait for the next Elder Scrolls game!

I need to play Chrono Trigger, and replay FFVI as well (I think I only put a few hours into it many years ago).

I loved FFVII, to the point where I made sure to pick up FFVIII on the day it was released. FFVIII was a bit of a disappointment, but it did have big shoes to fill, and I never finished it. I've heard the story actually gets better by halfway through, and I got bored early on. FFIX was better than VIII, and X wasn't bad.

I still haven't picked up XIII, and XII let me down a bit because I really don't like the active combat system. One of the things I like best about JRPGs is the frozen-time turn based combat system. It takes the stress and rapid button mashing away that I dislike about most action games.

I bought one of the COD games, or maybe it was a MOH game, I don't remember, I played it for a couple of hours and couldn't stand the twitchy gameplay. I loved BF2:MC on the Xbox 360 - the pace of combat and emphasis on strategy over reflexes was perfect. I played a bit of the BF3 demo on the PS3, and it seemed to be better than the COD/MOH type games, but still not as fun as BF2:MC was. Maybe I'll pick up the full version at some point.

I'm not a fan of the Elder Scrolls titles. I tried Morrowind on PC and Oblivion on the 360, and neither impressed me much. I can see the appeal if you like the whole open world thing, but the best part of RPGs for me is an engaging story - and the more you move away from linearity the less structured and involving the story can be. I won't say they are bad games, obviously a lot of people love them, but they miss the mark for me on what makes for a great RPG experience.

You don't see the best movie reviewers giving rave reviews to the latest Transformers movie or whatever's the latest big budget "event" to be released. You don't see the best book reviewers drooling over the latest James Patterson airport bookstore filler.

So why do we see the "best" games journalists giving 90+ reviews consistently to whatever big budget shlock is released by the games industry? Why is Skyrim considered earth-shattering? Why is Call of Duty considered A material?

Do games journalists ever wonder why games sites are the only media review sites that post "most overrated" lists? Might it have something to do with low standards? Inflated review scores? Hype?

Might it have something to do with selection bias in the games journalism profession?

It's funny seeing how much tastes differ: loved the prince of Persia games and assassin's creed 2 and brotherhood are great, don't get skyrim, not into call of duty, but most over rated game I think is Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2. Both games got exceptional scores, but failed to deliver even graphical engines of note and the storyline somehow got worse in both games. Both are great series that are being driven under by bad writing and an absence of innovation.

You don't see the best movie reviewers giving rave reviews to the latest Transformers movie or whatever's the latest big budget "event" to be released. You don't see the best book reviewers drooling over the latest James Patterson airport bookstore filler.

So why do we see the "best" games journalists giving 90+ reviews consistently to whatever big budget shlock is released by the games industry? Why is Skyrim considered earth-shattering? Why is Call of Duty considered A material?

Do games journalists ever wonder why games sites are the only media review sites that post "most overrated" lists? Might it have something to do with low standards? Inflated review scores? Hype?

Might it have something to do with selection bias in the games journalism profession?

These are the thoughts that come to mind when I read lists like this.

Keep in kind film reviews and book review can be supported with ad revenue not provided by publisher, If Roger Ebert's show was dependent entirely on Hollywood advertising do you think he could speak as freely? Video games are one of the stranger genres in that video game sites and magazines are basically dependent on big name publishers for ad revenue.

Really, when it comes down to it for me, I find games to be attractive solely for the mindset range you can play them in, but entertaining for the effort you have to put forth in that mindset. (I know that might sound a bit confusing, so stay with me here) Pong was attractive to many because it didn't matter what kind of mindset or mood you had at the time; but it wouldn't really last long these days because it's so simple. Starcraft isn't attractive to many because you have to be in a very clear mindset with clear goals, and lots of motivation; but to those who have it, they can pour out EVERYTHING they have into it.

Such complaints as the one against Valve's showing off of Half-life 2's physics engine are a clear example of this - coming from someone who wants a game that has a very deep, interactive storyline, almost like a movie, you're going to dislike moments like that. For me, I loved those parts - I played around with the parts, I threw around explosive barrels and I stacked pyramids to explore hidden parts of the map. In a way, it was a second half of the game.

The reason WoW was so popular was because it had elements that allowed people of all categories to dig in, as much as they wanted to. You could come in after a long day of work and just run a single casual instance, or you could plan out a vacation day & burn through a bunch of hardcore PVP. No game is "overrated"; it's just widely accepted.

I like the Elder Scrolls games very much. I just wish it could immerse me into Tamriel better. There is still a major lack of NPC's in the game to make the population feel realistic, and the WHOLE continent that Oblivion and Skyrim take place in still feel too small compared to the map.

So basically, every game someone loves is hated by another person. Is there any noticeable difference between a best of list and an overrated list?

But while we're at it, I don't get the appeal of the Uncharted series. Well, that's not entirely true, I can understand the appeal, but the first game (the only one I've played) is marred by inexplicably tedious and un-fun shooting, and I found the climbing sections to be pretty mindless. So, basically the entirety of the gameplay was a drag for me.

Also, God of War. I don't really know, the combat never clicked for me. It was okay. I suppose it also doesn't help that I don't have a taste for vengeance stories and the trappings of the game are quite, well, juvenile.

In terms of positives, Bethesda games get a lot of credit from me for giving the players the opportunity to approach any given challenge the way the want to approach it. That, and their games are all about the little mini-stories that are waiting around every corner, which can be plotlines, easter eggs, scenarios, locations, hints at other things. But I also have an apparently high tolerance for bugs. (One thing I don't understand is how people let things like bugs mar their enjoyment of a game, if it's not actively frustrating what you're trying to do.) I guess I'm also a proponent of seeking out the fun you want to have in a game, which some people aren't. To each their own, I suppose.

Finally, I think the Final Fantasy series definitely has some rose-colored glasses going on there. I remember FF2 (4 in Japan) deeply affecting my childhood when it took death and sacrifice seriously. Other games at the time just didn't do that sort of thing. But I went back and replayed (most of) it a year ago, and...the story is a mess. The pacing is terrible. Things kind of just quickly happen and then the plot moves on to something else. Maybe it was the best we had at the time, but the medium has matured since then. Still, I don't know if I'm willing to call the early FF games "overrated" simply because they were so influential to the development of games as a whole. I just can't agree that since a generation of developers grew up playing them and then made something better, that should shame the originals.

Sorry, strict relativism doesn't explain everything. The fact of the matter is, video games are given "ratings" by both professional journalists and regular consumers so, yes, there are games that are overrated just like there are games that are underrated.

In a less literal sense, an "overrated" piece of art should describe something that is hugely popular but critically unpopular. However, game journalists, unlike other media journalists, are simply consumers with a deadline and therefore there is rarely this sort of disconnect between popular and critical opinion. Hence part of the reason we suddenly see an explosion of these kind of articles every year -- because the only disconnect is in the opposite direction, where journalists like games better than the masses.

In terms of positives, Bethesda games get a lot of credit from me for giving the players the opportunity to approach any given challenge the way the want to approach it.... But I also have an apparently high tolerance for bugs.

I think those things go hand in hand. Their RPGs are complex, with a lot going on. They're bound to have some bugs. But because of the variety of methods and tactics they allow you can always get around a bug.

Anyway, I loved both of their Fallout games and look forward to another. The Elder Scrolls games just don't capture my imagination. I see some of the appeal, but funny made up names just distract me.

I can't be the only one here that bought Diablo 3 and felt deeply sad about the game.So many reviews praising it. But the game is simply too shallow and.. oh.. i just felt sad again that it simply isn't a worthy successor to D1 and D2.

I totally understand the hate the COD Series gets (I have very little interest in the last few), but COD4, the first Modern Warfare, was simply excellent. It's annoying as a franchise, but that first one really was good.

I can't be the only one here that bought Diablo 3 and felt deeply sad about the game.So many reviews praising it. But the game is simply too shallow and.. oh.. i just felt sad again that it simply isn't a worthy successor to D1 and D2.

Nah, you're not the only one. After playing it, it just left a bad taste in my mouth! I got a bit excited when I saw that they had new patches, but it was just new systems in place so that I'd be able to plan a bit more when farming loot..... and with the new loot, I could go to new areas and farm even better loot... and so on... So I just went "Uh, no thanks!"

I totally understand the hate the COD Series gets (I have very little interest in the last few), but COD4, the first Modern Warfare, was simply excellent. It's annoying as a franchise, but that first one really was good.

Agreed. COD4 was frigging awesome. Kind of short but engaging and, at the time, just different enough to be fun (although I'd argue it wasn't truly innovated). The rest of them after that? ew. I bought MOW3 and felt guilty for supporting that steaming pile of turd.

I totally understand the hate the COD Series gets (I have very little interest in the last few), but COD4, the first Modern Warfare, was simply excellent. It's annoying as a franchise, but that first one really was good.

I had to go back through my shelves to see which one I bought, and it turns out it was COD4. I remember the reviews raving about it, which is why I picked it up even though I normally don't care for shooters. I could never get into it, I think I put the disc in the PS3 twice before I just threw it back on the shelf and gave up.

It's probably not that it's a bad game, but I was hoping for something like BF2: Modern Combat (one of the only somewhat recent shooters I can recall enjoying) and it wasn't like that at all.

My takeaway: Every game has haters. Some of them have fans. If we're still talking about it in ten years, it's done something right.

Final Fantasy has got to be the biggest debate in gaming. I say 7 is the best, not because I can say so with any real authority, but because it's the measuring stick fans of 6 and 8 compare their pride and joy to. I completed 7, and was proud to do so. I never played 6, and I played 8 and 9 until I lost interest. But again, I have no authority. I don't like JRPGs. I don't like menu-based action where a character attacks because I told him to from a menu and it's decided, completely out of my hands, behind the scenes, whether he hits or misses. That's not a game to me. So I relinquish my authority to judge these games. I'm not qualified. But it can be said that 7 held my interest through to the end. I loved the music (and paid $40 to import the four-disc soundtrack from Japan), I loved Sephiroth and Cloud, I felt for Aerith (and insist on using her original name). It was a great experience for me... 15 years ago. But the only reason I can objectively say it's better than 6 or 8 is because those who do have the authority to judge these games, they like 6 or 8 better, but they always compare them to 7. 7 is still the standard by which Final Fantasy games, and in fact JRPGs in general, are compared.

As for Bethesda, I hold both them and myself accountable for their bugs. I deal with the bugs because I love the game, and I've disowned my wife's Xbox 360 over their lousy console versions. I bought and re-bought the games on Steam, and I couldn't be happier. I couldn't advance the main quest in Skyrim because a follower kept triggering the stupid dash puzzle. Fine, TCL and I'll walk right through those four gates, FYVM. I know what the puzzle is and I've done the requisite dragon shout in the right place at the right time to solve it. I deserve to pass it. It's not about timing, it's about me not wanting to fire my follower, pass the puzzle, pull the chain to lock the passage open, and then sprint after him or her to re-hire them before they exit the dungeon. Not to mention the other quests I've had to advance via the developer console. The cease-fire when nobody speaks. The side quest where you get jailed in Markarth and no one will come talk to you, or you can't get arrested because the guy's not in the shrine. I know Bethesda games have bugs, and I love them, so I play on the platform that lets me debug them and get past them.

Anything and everything by EA Sports...what they do is not only bad, but should be illegal and investigated for antitrust.

EA settled an anti-trust suit about anticompetitive practices for football games earlier this year. Moving forward they will not be able to enter into exclusive agreements for NCAA or Arena Football titles (though they can still make games - they just can't make a deal preventing competitors from also licensing the content). I believe they retain their ability to enter exclusive licensing arrangements with the NFL.

So, moving forward there will at least be the potential for competition when it comes to college football and arena football games.